Draft:Unified languages

anon

Clarification activity	Utopias and the information society
Author(s)	Joan Muñoz
Creation date	Jun 2025
Status	🟢 Needs improvement
Reviews	Rev.1

Review comments: This article requires the following improvements: The current content provides an appropriate outlook on Interlingua and how it is linked to other utopias and dystopias, but in its current form, it is open to the broader concept of 'unified languages'. This article/voice can be regarded as a container where other utopian projects of the same kind can be described, such as Esperanto, J. Wilkins analytica language, Leibniz' Characteristica Universalis, Llull's Ars Magna, Dalargano's Ars Signorum, religious aspiration to find an original, perfect, or sacred language, etc.

Projects aiming at a universal or auxiliary language—such as Interlingua, Esperanto, or earlier philosophical languages—belong to a long-standing family of utopias that seek to overcome linguistic fragmentation and enable global understanding. These initiatives reflect the long-standing belief that many social conflicts, inequalities, and epistemic barriers stem from the limits of natural languages. As such, they combine technical, cosmopolitan, and linguistic utopian aspirations, proposing communication as a key domain for improving human coexistence. While differing in design and scope, these projects share a common tension between ideal universality and cultural diversity, as well as between pragmatic functionality and philosophical ambition. The following section examines Interlingua as a paradigmatic case within this broader landscape,

Interlingua

Interlingua can be understood as a manifestation of the utopian ideal of a perfect or universal language within the broader historical and philosophical quest for a common means of communication. Emerging as a pragmatic yet visionary attempt to transcend linguistic barriers, it reflects long-standing aspirations for clarity, harmony, and mutual understanding among diverse cultures. Situated within the lineage of constructed languages, Interlingua both embodies and challenges utopian ambitions, revealing the persistent tension between idealism and practicality in the search for a universally accessible communicative tool.

Origin and historical development

Origins of the project and linguistic background

The idea of an international auxiliary language has very ancient roots, dating back to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, periods in which the ideal of universal reason and the unity of knowledge were central. Already during the Renaissance and Humanism, figures such as Juan Luis Vives and Francis Bacon imagined universal languages to facilitate communication and scientific exchange.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz envisioned a characteristica universalis as a rational lingua franca capable of resolving philosophical and scientific disputes. This period also saw the proliferation of artificial language projects, although none became firmly established.

During the 19th century, European colonial expansion and the development of global imperialism highlighted the practical need for a common language for trade and diplomacy. Planned languages emerged, such as Volapük (1879) and later Esperanto (1887), which remains the most widely used auxiliary language to this day. These projects were often driven by strong social and pacifist ideals.

The geopolitical and scientific context of the early 20th century

The 20th century was characterized by accelerated and often traumatic changes. The consequences of the First and Second World Wars increased interest in projects aimed at international cooperation and mutual understanding, in order to prevent future conflicts. At the same time, the creation of international organizations—such as the League of Nations (1919) and later the United Nations (1945)—demonstrated the need for global structures of dialogue and cooperation, in which effective communication played a central role.

Parallel to these developments, scientific and technological progress transformed the linguistic landscape. Advances in the natural sciences, the expansion of education, and increasing specialization generated a new universe of international terminology. English, French, German, and later Russian became dominant languages of science, but none achieved true universality.

Since the 19th century, globalization and technological advances have continued to fuel the need for an auxiliary language that could facilitate communication between people of different nationalities. In this context, multiple linguistic proposals emerged, from Volapük (created in 1879 by Johann Martin Schleyer) to Esperanto (1887 by Ludwik Zamenhof), all aiming to provide neutral and accessible means of communication. However, these languages often relied on artificial structures which, although easy to learn, were not based on the natural vocabulary of the world’s most widely spoken languages.

Interlingua emerged from the search for a more natural alternative: a language that would take advantage of the historical evolution of Latin and the Romance languages, allowing it to be understood without the need for prior learning.

The role of the International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA)

In 1924, the International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA) was founded in New York by Alice Vanderbilt Morris and her husband, Dave Hennen Morris, two philanthropists passionate about international communication. Their goal was to study and develop an international auxiliary language based on scientific principles.

The IALA's early years focused on analyzing existing language systems. With the help of prominent linguists (including Otto Jespersen, Edward Sapir, and André Martinet), languages ​​such as Esperanto, Ido, and Western languages ​​were explored, assessing their viability as means of international communication. Over time, research revealed that the best option was not to adopt an artificial language but to develop a language based on widely recognized terms worldwide.

The Interlingua Creation Process

Beginning in 1937, the IALA began developing its own auxiliary language under the direction of German linguist Alexander Gode, who played a pivotal role in structuring Interlingua. His approach was different from previous artificial languages: instead of creating a grammar from scratch, Gode and his team established rules based on the common vocabulary of Romance languages ​​and English.

The IALA's work culminated in 1951, when the first Interlingua dictionary, titled the Interlingua-English Dictionary, was officially published, along with a detailed grammar. This dictionary included words recognizable to most speakers of Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, and English, making it easier to understand without the need for prior instruction.

Fundamental Principles of Interlingua

Interlingua is based on the idea that communication should be as accessible as possible. Its key features include:

1. International Vocabulary: Words that already exist in multiple languages ​​were chosen, ensuring they were recognizable without the need for memorization.
2. Simplified Grammar: While maintaining the basic structure of Romance languages, unnecessary irregularities were eliminated, making Interlingua easy to use.
3. Natural Spelling: The phonetic evolution of words was respected instead of imposing an artificial spelling.
4. Immediate Comprehensibility: Many Romance language speakers can understand Interlingua texts without having previously studied it.

Interlingua within the categories of philosophical utopias

Interlingua can be classified into several utopic families or trends:

Technical or functional utopias which do not imagine a perfect society in moral or spiritual terms, but rather in technical or practical ones. Interlingua belongs to this category because it seeks to solve a technical-cultural problem (the lack of communication between peoples) through a functional tool: a common, understandable, and neutral language.

Cosmopolitan utopias which dream of a world without borders, where humanity recognizes itself as one. A single language has been a constant in these visions. Interlingua also belongs to this family, as it promotes a worldview where linguistic diversity does not imply misunderstanding or inequality.

Linguistic utopias which rely on the assumption that many of the world's injustices, conflicts, and misunderstandings stem from the defects of human language. Projects such as Leibniz's "lingua perfecta" (characteristic universalis) or Esperanto reflect this type of thinking. Interlingua is an heir to this tradition, but distances itself from purely philosophical or artificial languages, opting for a naturalistic approach based on existing Romance languages.

The Utopia of Interlingua in the Information Society

The advent of the information society, characterized by the widespread creation, distribution, and manipulation of information through digital technologies, is transforming the way human beings communicate and interact globally. Within this new paradigm, the utopian vision of Interlingua as a perfect or ideal language takes on renewed relevance and urgency, as the challenges of linguistic diversity and communicative efficiency become more acute.

The utopian ideal of Interlingua in the information society revolves around its potential to serve as a universal linguistic bridge in an increasingly interconnected and data-driven world. The explosion of information flows—through scientific research, global media, commerce, and social media—exacerbates the fragmentation caused by language barriers. Despite the rise of dominant languages ​​like English, the diversity of mother tongues still poses significant challenges to equitable access, clarity, and mutual understanding. The promise of Interlingua lies on its design: an accessible, neutral language based on common linguistic roots that could democratize the exchange of information.

Universal Access to Knowledge: In the information society, knowledge is power, and language barriers create asymmetries in who can participate in the global discourse. Interlingua's naturalistic vocabulary, drawn from Romance languages ​​and English, makes it immediately understandable to millions of people, allowing for faster learning and use without the ideology and cultural baggage associated with national languages. This could empower non-native speakers to access, share, and contribute to scientific, technological, and cultural knowledge, thereby bridging the digital divide.

Neutrality and Inclusion: Interlingua embodies the utopian principle of language neutrality, essential in the politically charged environment of the information society. Unlike natural lingua francas that often bear the burden of cultural imperialism (e.g., English), Interlingua aspires to be a neutral tool, free from nationalist domination. This neutrality is crucial for the fair exchange of information, fostering trust and cooperation in international collaborations, open data initiatives, and global governance.

Communication Efficiency: Speed ​​and clarity of communication are vital in the information society, where information overload is a constant challenge. Interlingua's regular grammar and vocabulary, designed to be immediately recognizable and easy to process, offer an efficient linguistic system that minimizes misunderstandings and translation errors. This efficiency could facilitate everything from international scientific publishing to real-time data sharing and global problem-solving, embodying a utopian ideal of fluid communication.

Interlingua as a Tool for Cultural Exchange: Beyond its practical aspect, Interlingua represents a utopian vision of cultural dialogue and integration. By drawing on multiple European linguistic traditions, it symbolically unites diverse cultures under a shared communicative framework. In the information society, where cultural content proliferates and intercultural understanding is vital for social cohesion, Interlingua could serve as a medium that respects diversity and promotes mutual intelligibility.

Dystopian Aspects Related to the Interlingua Utopia

Every utopia, when imagining an ideal world, can also be analysed in terms of its potential negative consequences or risks. In the case of Interlingua, several dystopian aspects can emerge if this utopia is not handled carefully.

Dystopia of Cultural Homogenization and Loss of Diversity: Eliminate or diminish the importance of local and minority languages, causing an irreversible loss of culture, traditions, and ancestral knowledge. Lead to cultural homogenization, where the richness of human diversity is impoverished by the domination of a hegemonic language and culture. This aspect is especially relevant for Interlingua because, being based on Romance languages, it can represent a covert form of cultural Eurocentrism.

Dystopia of communicative control and surveillance: If a universal language is imposed or monopolized, it could be used as a tool for global surveillance, manipulation, or censorship. Linguistic uniformity would facilitate the standardization and mass monitoring of discourse, eliminating spaces for cultural and critical resistance. Although Interlingua is an open and voluntary project, its use in a hyperconnected world could be exploited for less altruistic purposes.

Dystopia of Failure and Exclusion: The practical impossibility of Interlingua's widespread adoption generates exclusion. The persistence of deep language barriers can increase social and political fragmentation, accentuating inequalities and a lack of understanding. In this sense, the linguistic utopia of Interlingua can become a source of frustration and alienation for its proponents.

Current Situation of the Interlingua Utopia in the 21st Century

In the present day, Interlingua remains a marginal yet symbolically powerful project. It represents a rationalist, pacifist, and technocratic utopia of global communication, but its real-world application is limited. Below is a detailed analysis of its current status across different dimensions.

Practical Use and Global Reach. Interlingua has a small but dedicated community of speakers, mainly in Europe and the Americas. It is used for hobbyist communication, translations, and some educational and scientific content. Unlike English, French, or even Esperanto (which is sometimes used recognition in international meetings and has some legal use), Interlingua has no institutional backing or formal recognition by governments or international organizations. It maintains a modest online footprint—there are dictionaries, learning platforms, YouTube content, and online forums. However, its visibility is far eclipsed by English and even Esperanto.

Relevance in the Information Society. The ideals that motivated Interlingua—global communication, access to knowledge, and linguistic neutrality—are more relevant than ever in today's globalized, hyper-connected world. However English is the default language of science, business, academia, and digital platforms. Around 80% of all online scientific publications are in English.

Machine translation and AI tools (like Google Translate, DeepL, and ChatGPT) are reducing the need for an intermediary universal language. The idea of ​​a constructed linguistic bridge is being replaced by automated multilingualism. Global South languages ​​remain underrepresented, and the Interlingua—despite its intentions—does little to address this imbalance, as it draws primarily from Western European languages.

Cultural and Political Reception. While Interlingua was meant to be culturally neutral, critics point out that it reflects a Western European bias, primarily favoring Romance languages ​​and international scientific vocabulary rooted in Latin and Greek. In the 21st century, the ideal of linguistic diversity and plurilingualism has gained more traction than linguistic unification. UNESCO, for example, promotes cultural and linguistic plurality as essential to sustainable development.

Philosophical synthesis

The utopia of Interlingua is situated at the crossroads between a rationalist and humanist ideal, which believes in reason and science to solve fundamental problems of humanity, such as communication and peace and a multicultural and complex reality, where communication is not only technical, but deeply political and cultural.

In the information society, the utopia of a common language reflects a hope for a more interconnected and understanding world. However, it also highlights the tensions between unity and diversity, homogenization and plurality, control and freedom.

From a critical philosophical perspective, Interlingua exemplifies the dialectic of utopias: every ideal vision contains within itself potential elements for progress, oppression, or failure.

Concluding remark on Interlingua

Interlingua represents more than a linguistic system; it is a utopian project situated at the intersection of rationalist, cosmopolitan, and technical aspirations. While its practical adoption remains limited, its conceptual significance persists within the broader history of utopian thought. In the contemporary information society, where communication is increasingly mediated by digital technologies and automated translation systems, the original problem Interlingua sought to solve has not disappeared but rather transformed.

Its utopian vision continues to highlight fundamental tensions between unity and plurality, accessibility and diversity, communication and power. Rather than being judged solely by its empirical success, Interlingua can be understood as part of an ongoing exploration of alternative communicative futures. In this sense, it exemplifies the enduring role of utopias: not as fully realizable projects, but as critical and imaginative frameworks that challenge existing conditions and expand the horizon of what is conceivable in human communication.